Announcements

Starting in December, we will archive content from the community that is 10 years and older. This FAQ provides more information.

Unexpected Circular Pattern Behavior?

ianteneth
Advocate
Advocate

Unexpected Circular Pattern Behavior?

ianteneth
Advocate
Advocate

I am curious if this is expected behavior or a bug. I am using Inventor Pro 2019.4. When I create a simple two occurrence circular pattern of a hole and set the angle to 360 deg, the placement of the patterned hole is positioned 180 deg from the original hole instead of 360 deg. Below is a screenshot of this behavior. I suspect that this is intentional because it would be pointless to actually place a hole at 360 deg (it would be on top of the first hole and Inventor won't even let you do it).

 

However, this doesn't appear to be consistent behavior. It seems that 360 deg is a special case. 720 deg and 1080 deg do not exhibit this behavior. I have attached screenshots of other angles; 0 deg, 359 deg, and 720 deg. I can work around it if 360 deg is a special case; kind of clunky for my code though.

 

360 deg360 deg

 

0 Likes
Reply
Accepted solutions (1)
403 Views
2 Replies
Replies (2)

JhoelForshav
Mentor
Mentor

What you say with 360 degrees is that the number of holes should be evenly spread over 360 degrees. Thats why you get that result. With anything less than a full rotation, ex 359 degrees the even spread is one hole at the start and one at the end of the span. Thats why they are so different. 720 means evenly spread is one rotation and thats why the holes end up at the same position 🙂

 

It will become clearer if how it works if you increase the number of holes

0 Likes

JhoelForshav
Mentor
Mentor
Accepted solution

Edit:

It seems as if only 360 degrees is treated as a closed path. So 720 degrees follows the same logic as 359 in this case an open path thats swept 720 degrees around the axis. 2 occurrences evenly spread on that path means one at the start of the path and one at the end. If it was how i first explained it 1080 would not give the result that it does.